Archive:000/Crop choices
One way to increase crop yields is to simply grow different crops.
Which crops get the highest yields? The answer is different in every region of the world. See this chart for all crops and all countries. Note: the page is quite big and may be slow to load.
Scenario overview
Let's explore a hypothetical scenario in which every country grows mainly its highest-yielding crops.
For each country:
- Each crop is given an amount of land proportional to the square of its yield score.
- The yield score is based on both calories and protein (human-edible only).
- Weighting: 2000 calories is equivalent to 60 grams of protein.
- Total amount of farmland (all crops combined) is the same as the status quo.
This scenario is generated by Code:food1.sql, which uses data from FAO (crop production/yields) and USDA (nutrition data).
Some key findings
- Globally, total crop yields would be almost doubled.
- In Africa, total crop yields would be tripled.
- The food supply would be more nutritionally complete. (...)
- There would be far more fruits & vegetables (which vary widely by region).
- However, some food choices are very questionable - such as ridiculously large amounts of garlic & chili peppers.
Maps - food crop production:
For a detailed breakdown by country, see this page.
Nutrition calculator links
The links below show the crops as foods in the nutrition calculator, as food per day per capita. Note: this is primary production, which is significantly higher than what people actually eat.
| World: | before | after |
| Africa: | before | after |
| Asia: | before | after |
| Europe: | before | after |
| North America: | before | after |
| Oceania: | before | after |
| South America: | before | after |
Using the crop choices to prevent deforestation
Improving crop yields can allow us to:
- grow more food from the same amount of land
- grow the same amount of food using less land
- something in-between: Using a bit less land and also producing a bit more food.
Which one is best? Depends on whether food is currently abundant or scarce.
The "in between" is probably best for the world, overall - because:
- Even modest increases in food supply would be enough to end hunger, and
- Even modest decreases in land usage would be enough to end deforestation.
Economics
Labor & costs
The scenario involves a lot of fruits & vegetables which are currently more expensive (per calorie) than grains. If the costs have anything to do with farm labor, then we're looking at a scenario that would require a lot more people to work in agriculture. Then again, maybe not - perhaps the high prices of fruits/vegetables have more to do with grocery stores keeping them fresh. Consider how some countries can make sugar cheaply from sugar beets (a root vegetable, in some sense). Perhaps we could make similarly cheap nonperishable products (but hopefully more nutritious than sugar!) from abundant produce.
Importance of imports & exports
In the scenario, some countries grow an extreme amount of certain foods (foods that wouldn't, on their own, make a balanced diet). But worldwide - and even continent-wide, the food supply is quite nutritionally balanced (see nutrition calculator links). In other words, countries would really have to trade with each other.
This would require more shipping as food would be less local. But still, overall carbon emissions would probably be lower, because of all the deforestation prevented (see above). Keep in mind that food transport is only a small percent of food's environmental footprint. And it could be smaller still if foods are processed locally and shipped in their more concentrated forms.
See also
- Food - the main page which includes other ways to improve the global food supply.